Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify UNAT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. UNAT held that an application before UNDT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. UNAT held that the...

UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any errors in procedure, fact, or law and correctly dismissed the motion for an extension of time to file an application against the contested decision. UNAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for management evaluation and she was not exempted from doing so. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s motion to file an additional pleading in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting it. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to seek leave from UNAT to introduce additional evidence and neither adduced evidence that exceptional circumstances warranted it nor that it would serve the interests of justice or the efficient and expeditious resolution of the appeal. On the issue of execution of the 2016 UNDT judgment, UNAT held that there was no evidence that any of the orders contained therein were not executed and therefore the application was not...

UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any errors of law or fact in finding that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the Local Salary Survey Committee (LSSC) does not constitute a technical body and therefore does not exempt the Appellants from the mandatory first step of requesting management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that UNDT did not commit any errors of law or fact in finding that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that the Local Salary Survey Committee (LSSC) does not constitute a technical body and therefore does not exempt the Appellants from the mandatory first step of requesting a management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...

Under the revised Appendix D, a claimant wishing to contest a decision based upon a medical determination shall submit a request for reconsideration of the medical determination by a technical body. On the other hand, a claimant wishing to contest a decision based on considerations other than a medical determination shall submit a written request for management evaluation. The revised Appendix D makes either a reconsideration process under art. 5.1 or a management evaluation process mandatory. In other words, a claimant needs to request either a reconsideration of medical determinations or a...

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, the Tribunal found the applications receivable ratione temporis in view that 1) it did not process the Applicants’ 2014/2015 motions for extension of time, thus did not include in its March and June 2015 adjudication of similar cases and 2) in light of UNAT’s reversal of the UNDT’s March and June 2015 judgments. Concerning receivability ratione materiae, the Tribunal considered the fact that the Applicants did not request management evaluation on the grounds that the decision had been taken by a technical body. In this connection, the Tribunal noted...

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, which the Tribunal examined on its own motion, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with the deadline for technical reasons and supported by evidence falls outside the scope of art. 8.3 of its Statute, which requires a written request for an extension from an Applicant. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that in this case, the Applicants filed their applications after the set deadline due to reasons outside of their control, which they timely flagged, and found the applications receivable ratione temporis. Concerning receivability ratione materiae...